I am not admitting that it is an emotional need. I am asking if you believe it is an emotional need based on tradition. So pathetic to leap on that one as a victory.

Or, perhaps, you realized you just put your foot in it and are now trying to backpedal. Not surprising, because if you acknowledge that it's a legitimate emotional need for some people, your argument collapses. But the fact is that you don't get to arbitrarily decide that the only needs that matter are the objective ones that everyone has, such as food, water, sleep, etc. People have subjective needs, and you don't get to dictate whether or not they're legitimate or necessary.

Quote from: joebbowers

Now you're just lying to yourself. Embalming, metal coffins and concrete tombs are all to help the body safely decompose? And the expensive carved statues as headstones are helpful in that process? If the goal is safe decomposition, isn't cremation safer while using less resources and space? If they are not intended to be kept forever, how long are they to be kept? Do graves have expiration dates? When do we dig them up? With current burial processes, a body will last thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years before completely decomposing to dust, and the metal coffin even longer. It's as close to 'forever' as we can get really.

So somehow, I'm "lying to myself" because I don't agree with you. How typical of someone who apparently can't comprehend the very simple fact that just because he thinks something is so, does not mean it actually is so.

Embalming is a process intended to keep a body from decaying for a week or so, long enough for the funeral[1]. I'll grant that most caskets are made of metal today, but that hardly matters, as even under the worst possible circumstances, it only takes a few hundred years for a body to completely decompose[2], certainly not the thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of years you state. So I highly doubt that it takes that long for the caskets to come apart either. And as for concrete burial vaults, they're mainly just to keep graves from settling as the caskets disintegrate - you know, those very same caskets that you just claimed would last for thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years. If the caskets truly lasted that long, there'd be no need for concrete vaults.

I have no objections to people who choose cremation for themselves or their loved ones. However, I would object to making cremation obligatory, just as I would object to making burial obligatory, or any other method of body disposal obligatory. And as for headstones, so what? They're basically for a memorial, which you tacitly admitted was okay with you not all that long ago. And as for cemeteries filling up, there are laws (which differ from state to state) governing allowing the removal of corpses. Sure, you won't see too many people allowing their parents or grandparents to be removed, perhaps even their great grandparents, but once you get six or seven generations down the road (within 200 years), you won't see too many people caring that much about it. And, amazingly enough, that would leave space for new corpses without having to expand cemeteries indefinitely.

Quote from: joebbowers

I got it, it was not analogous to my argument. I've already said it. Just going in circles now...

Since you still don't understand how badly your argument fails at the essential task of convincing people, I would say you didn't really get it.

Quote from: joebbowers

Fine, bury them. I'm fine with that. It's the wasteful process associated with it that I have a problem with, not to mention the ever-expanding size of cemeteries. We've only used metal coffins and concrete tombs for the past 50 years or so. Are they really a necessary part of our traditions?

Funny thing about that, I think the expanding population is a much bigger problem than the expanding size of cemeteries. There is no real comparison between the resources used for burials and the land used for cemeteries and the resources and land used by living people. And sorry, but you're wrong about only metal caskets being used. Wood coffins are still used quite a bit today, as much as 30% of all caskets used[3]. And to be blunt, concrete tombs simply don't bother me in terms of waste, because they aren't wasted. They're used to keep the ground from settling (which is not a minor concern if you're burying a body in a casket). The corpses still decompose, and the coffins still disintegrate.

As a society we often have to limit the freedoms of individuals for the good of the majority. And frankly if you look at the surge in popularity of "green" or "alternative" burials recently, I don't think it would be that hard to convince most people.

So go out and convince them then. If it's really not that hard, surely you shouldn't have any trouble convincing people that your position is a good one.

I think that, by the time we need the land, no one will care about the tombs (or they'll be gone naturally). As long as we're respectful in moving them, people won't mind. I envision towering monoliths created for storing bodies.

My country has half the landmass of France. We need land now! We're already running out of landfill for garbage disposal. Here's an idea. We can send all our dead people to America and bury them there. After all America has lots of spare land.

Here's a point. When was the last time you saw a new cemetary start? Some huge piece of land set aside in the centre of a major city for the sole purpose of burying dead people.

Logged

"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Don't be so literal. "Injury" is pretty straightforward. "Injury to a soul" is much much less so. Whether I'm buried or whether I'm cremated harms no one, but if there's a possibility that I might do myself harm by being buried via one particular method, there;s no harm in avoiding that method.

Or do you disagree?

Logged

- SMRT AdminCompared to this thread, retarded midget wrestling for food stamps is the pinnacle of human morality.-- Ambassador Pony

Um, it's a little hard to lend credence to the idea of being injured by being buried, unless you're not actually dead. And as for soul injuries (whatever it's supposed to mean), it's a little difficult to conceive of those since the soul is supposed to be immaterial, and immaterial things can't be damaged by physical actions.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

I think that, by the time we need the land, no one will care about the tombs (or they'll be gone naturally). As long as we're respectful in moving them, people won't mind. I envision towering monoliths created for storing bodies.

My country has half the landmass of France. We need land now! We're already running out of landfill for garbage disposal. Here's an idea. We can send all our dead people to America and bury them there. After all America has lots of spare land.

Here's a point. When was the last time you saw a new cemetary start? Some huge piece of land set aside in the centre of a major city for the sole purpose of burying dead people.

Actually there was an evolution in cemeteries. In the 1840 the US saw the beginings of the rural cemetery movement. Large well lanscaped bits of land outside of tow that were to relieve the pressure of the overflowing church cemeteries within cities, there were also intended as parks and romantic places to have a picnic. This remained the fasion throughout the Victorian period.

Numerous laws regarding cemeteries also began which ended up with plenty of cemeteries being moved, or Churches sometime being built over graves. The most famous artifact of this change of Laws to acknowledge the consquences of the disposal of the dead is the Catacombs of Paris starting as early as 1786.

However with the advent of the streetcar and the automobile these areas that were deemed rural are often now deep within the confines of the modern city. With The destuction of the Cemetery the least politically popular way of gaining space and the complete loss of other green spaces, there has been a trend since about the mid 1980s to once again treat these as parks, particularly by bohemians, runners, and dog walkers.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

As long as we are kinda stuck with burials for a while, how about combining graveyards with other uses? Recreation possibilities abound: cemetaries would make wonderful doggie parks-- talk about the thrills when Rover digs up a bone! Kids could play hopscotch on the flat markers and use the taller ones to balance see-saws.

Cemetaries with flat markers could be golf courses; the military could use the ones with big mausoleums as obstacles for training troops--many of them are in the south near military bases, right? Avant garde artists like Cristo could wrap colored cloth around the gravestones to make a pretty statement.....

I agree that using cemetaries to bury people is wasteful in terms of land use. Countries with low land to people ratios like Japan, Hong Kong and the Philippines are already struggling with what to do with the dead. Despite his antagonsitic tone, joebowers is right that we are going to have to embrace "green" alternatives to burial.

I don't have the "squick" reaction to dead stuff. I worked in a morgue, so the idea of being around dead people does not scare me. But many people are just freaked out by the whole thing and it is hard to get a rational response, whether religious or not. Death is just creepy. The rituals around funerals and burials help people deal with death.[1]

Cremation is bad for the environment, too because it takes a lot of energy to reduce a human being to bone and ashes. Face it, we are bad for the planet!

I laughed at an ad for coffins at Costco. It said they were offering non-threatening casket purchases. What would be a threatening coffin? One with big teeth that growled and snapped at people as they passed by? One with a bomb strapped to it?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Um, it's a little hard to lend credence to the idea of being injured by being buried, unless you're not actually dead. And as for soul injuries (whatever it's supposed to mean), it's a little difficult to conceive of those since the soul is supposed to be immaterial, and immaterial things can't be damaged by physical actions.

No one's "lending credence" to any idea.

Y'all are taking this way out of context. I'm playing it safe, as I said before.

Logged

- SMRT AdminCompared to this thread, retarded midget wrestling for food stamps is the pinnacle of human morality.-- Ambassador Pony

I don't have any objection to joebbowers's ideas, in their own right. I object strenuously to the way he comes across when presenting them, especially when he takes some trend to a completely absurd extreme, such as every inch of land being used for cemeteries.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Um, it's a little hard to lend credence to the idea of being injured by being buried, unless you're not actually dead. And as for soul injuries (whatever it's supposed to mean), it's a little difficult to conceive of those since the soul is supposed to be immaterial, and immaterial things can't be damaged by physical actions.

It's a supernatural belief, and you are looking for scientific answers?

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

but if there's a possibility that I might do myself harm by being buried via one particular method, there;s no harm in avoiding that method.

There is as much reason to believe you will or will not be harmed by being buried as there is that you will or will not be harmed by being cremated. Which is to say, none at all. But if you're going to give credence to one "possibility" without evidence, then you have no reasonable cause to ignore the inverse "possibility".

We've only used metal coffins and concrete tombs for the past 50 years or so. Are they really a necessary part of our traditions?

And sorry, but you're wrong about only metal caskets being used. Wood coffins are still used quite a bit today, as much as 30% of all caskets used.

You misunderstood me. I didn't say we have 'used only metal caskets' I said we have 'only used metal caskets'. The former would mean exclusively used metal caskets as you interpreted it, the latter means we have used metal caskets for a short time.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

I would also point out that almost all burial ceremonies are religious in nature so it seems somewhat odd that a bunch of atheists would find a reason to defend them.

You will quickly find that Lucifer by default takes the opposite position of whatever what OP says. He's simply argumentative in nature. Some of the others simply take the opposite position of whatever I say.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Charities are giving in nature. Most of them are also religious in nature. This doesn't mean that charities are necessarily religious, and indeed people are justified in objecting to the religious aspect.

Burials are memorial in nature. Most of them are also religious in nature. This doesn't mean that burials are necessarily religious, and indeed people are justified in objecting to the religious aspect.

Given that most people are religious, we can expect most institutions - especially traditional ones - to be affected by it.

Human desires are important, I've never said they weren't. My point is that if an alternative method to meet those desires can be found that is less wasteful, it should be used. I'm amazed that people actually disagree with that.

Really? Giiven the way that you present your views, are you honestly surprised at the reaction you are getting?

I've said before - I generally agree with you that it would be less wasteful of resources not to bury or cremate. but to process and recycle. So intellectually I'm already on side - but as I've said, your attitude makes me want to oppose you.

So I'm interested in how you would actually intend to pitch the campaign to the general population - who, let's face it, will have a lot more spiritual baggage than I do, and more emotional attachment to the "old ways". Did you intend to just go out there and say "deal with it, losers"? Or would you be taking account of their emotional needs and mollifying your stance?

You accused Lucifer of being contrary by default. From what I've seen, your modus operani is to be pugnacious and domineering by default. Which makes me wonder - again - what is more important to you? If moderating your tone and manner would make your ideas more likely to be accepted, would you - could you - do it? Or is the argument and belittling of others and showing off your intellect more important to you?

The medium is the message, and all that, joe. How much do you honestly want to see a change come to pass, and how much do you just enjoy an online barney?

Have you ever thought that maybe I actually disagree with the OP's I say I disagree with?As for everyone else, have you ever thought that maybe you just hold views that nobody else agrees with? Have you ever heard of false consensus effect? You should also read about empathy gap, which seems to be another type of bias you're prone to.

Really? Giiven the way that you present your views, are you honestly surprised at the reaction you are getting?

First, a lot of this is just a personal bias some people here have against me. They are arguing against what they want me to be saying and ignoring what I'm actually saying.

For example...

Quote from: joebbowers

Cremation and burial are superstitious practices, wasteful and useless.

I think all people should be ground up and used for fertilizer. The sad part is that superstitious traditions are so ingrained in us that while my solution is logical, cheap, and beneficial, most people would say it's crazy.

Notice I said cremation and burial, I did not say funerals.

Then this happened...

Quote from: Adzgari

Similarly, funerals are superstitious practices - wasteful and useless!All people should be forgotten when they die. They're no longer relevant, after all./sarcasm

Which is a poor attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but is actually a strawman. It's Adzgari's strawman that most of the following arguments were directed.

Quote from: Lucifer

Not everyone can just forget about the dead as soon as they die. Many people miss other people. The funeral procedure might give some a sense of closure. To others it's a way to honor the deceased. It may even be both. I'm sure there are a lot of other things I'm forgetting, but you get the point.

I don't go to funerals because of superstition. I go to funerals for closure and to respect and remember the life that the deceased lived. That's the whole point, so that those who still live can maintain their sense of community with each other.

Ask yourself, are those directed at my comment that burials and cremations are wasteful, or at Adzgari's strawman?

All people should be forgotten when they die. They're no longer relevant, after all.

/sarcasm

As are birthdays, Weddings, baby showers, holidays....all susperstitious wasteful and useless. Clothing other than protective clothing is too. Familial attachments as well. People should just eat, sleep, procreate on occasion, and work.

And then we have Hatter's reduction ad absurdum of Adzgari's strawman.

*tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek*[1] Dead people are dead, after all. Whatever they did during their life, if anything, ceases to matter to them at the moment of death. So why should anyone else have to respect their memories afterward? Just toss them in a hole, incinerate them, use them as fertilizer...hey, I know, let's skip all that and just convert their actual bodies into food, the way farms do with dead cow parts to feed to living ones. Even more logical, even cheaper, even more beneficial. I bet the only reason anyone could possibly object to this practice is because of the superstitious traditions ingrained in them.

Or, perhaps, the whole "superstitious traditions" argument is overblown in the first place.

Funerals have purpose. Family members can gather to mourn and get closure. This is not superstition. I never even remotely suggested that it was, nor did I say that we should forget people when they die.

Joe, there is already a movement in Sweden that does that -- but with sentimentality. The freeze dried, ground up decedent is returned in a sturdy cardboard box and you are to bury it and plant a tree over it. Then you can show the children the tree that is great grandmother. Or the city can grow a tree over her in a park.

Historicity points out that my fertilizer idea is already an option. With the strawmen dead and my green burial alternative validated. I move on.

As I said... have the funeral, have a wake, have a party, mourn, grieve, whatever. But after that, bodies should be disposed of in a way that does not use resources, preferably by converting the body itself into a resource. Is that unreasonable? Especially when you consider that there will be over 10 billion new corpses in the next century or so.

Are you saying that it would be impossible for families to grieve properly if the dead were not embalmed in formaldehyde, buried in an expensive coffin then encased in concrete forever?

I restate my central premise, and question the necessity of the excess of the modern burial.

Cremation and burial are superstitious practices, wasteful and useless.

Superstitious? My memories of my family are not superstitious. If something happens to my wife or children, forgive me if I don't immediately shove them in a meat grinder and sprinkle them over the garden.

I hope this comment was just poorly constructed, and that you aren't actually so callused to love.

Inveni0 joins the conversation late. I never said memories are superstitious, nor did I say we should immediately dispose of the bodies without a funeral or mourning period, but his strawman steps up to take that position.

I've said before - I generally agree with you that it would be less wasteful of resources not to bury or cremate. but to process and recycle. So intellectually I'm already on side - but as I've said, your attitude makes me want to oppose you.

Honestly are you opposing me, or the hordes of strawmen that are always laid at my feet by the haters on this forum?

So I'm interested in how you would actually intend to pitch the campaign to the general population - who, let's face it, will have a lot more spiritual baggage than I do, and more emotional attachment to the "old ways". Did you intend to just go out there and say "deal with it, losers"? Or would you be taking account of their emotional needs and mollifying your stance?

"Deal with it, losers"? Is that really something I would say, or is that something their strawmen would say?

To answer your question I don't think it would be hard to convince people. A lot of people choose cremation today because they see it as a less espensive, less wasteful alternative to burial. Rending the corpse to fertilizer is even less expensive and wasteful, and the family can use the remains to plant a tree or flower garden; giving them a place to remember the dead and when the tree bears fruit or the flowers bloom it may give them a sense of peace to know that their loved ones are still connected to the living world, in some sense. In the cash-strapped but environmentally conscious and socially responsible United States, I could certainly see it catching on.

You accused Lucifer of being contrary by default. From what I've seen, your modus operani is to be pugnacious and domineering by default. Which makes me wonder - again - what is more important to you? If moderating your tone and manner would make your ideas more likely to be accepted, would you - could you - do it? Or is the argument and belittling of others and showing off your intellect more important to you?

The medium is the message, and all that, joe. How much do you honestly want to see a change come to pass, and how much do you just enjoy an online barney?

I very rarely use personal attacks or troll others. I explain my position, often repeatedly, and let reason prevail. When others troll me or personally attack me they get a pass.

I also lament the waste of resources. As predicted, Lucifer lashes out and says that I do not care for the families of the dead. He is still debating Adzgari's long-thought-dead strawman.

"As predicted", then you say "long-thought-dead". Nice prediction there.Anyway, if you cared about the families of the deceased you'd say something like..."They want to honor the dead in their own way. Let them", which is what we're saying. Instead, we get this:"OMG!!! I DON'T APPROVE OF ANY OF THIS SHIT!!! TOO WASTEFUL!!! FUCK THE WAY THE LIVING WANT THEIR DEAD TO BE HONORED!!! THIS MUST ALL BE DONE MY WAY!!!"[1]

I believe it was Azdgari who said this, but I'll say it again:Stop lying about what you post. The posts are there for all to see.

Anyway, if you cared about the families of the deceased you'd say something like..."They want to honor the dead in their own way. Let them", which is what we're saying.

Would I really say that if I considered 'their own way' to be a massive waste of much needed resources and land, and if a more efficient alternative was available that satisfied the same emotional needs? Why would I say that? Why would anyone?

Would I really say that if I considered 'their own way' to be a massive waste of much needed resources and land, and if a more efficient alternative was available that satisfied the same emotional needs? Why would I say that? Why would anyone?

It doesn't satisfy the same emotional needs. If it did, don't you think we'd agree with you? No, of course you don't. You suffer from "everyone disagrees with me because they don't like me"-itis.Maybe the reason for us not agreeing with you is because your ideas are not as good as you think. Think about that.

On the other hand, preserving bodies for centuries by embalming then encasing them in an airtight tomb, as is the modern practice, is simply modern mummification. There is no afterlife, therefore no reason to preserve the bodies this way. It's also a huge waste of land and resources. It is stupid.

Cremation is less stupid, but more creepy. I mean if a funeral is for closure, then why keep the dead in your house? And how many generations are you expected to keep? Should my father pass down his father's ashes to me, and I pass them on to my kids, and so on? At some point, you've got a closet full of jars of human remains. That kind of crazy only happens for religious reasons.

By all means, have a funeral, say goodbye. Then let the city body disposal service take it away and make compost out of it.

Summary: The way people want their dead to be honored is stupid and/or creepy. Do it my way.

Nobody, nobody, needs to bury their dead. If they had been raised in a culture that did not bury their dead, do you still think they would still have that need? The simply believe they do because it is the tradition. It can, and will, change.

And this simply shows how you admitted you were wrong about the needs people have.Judging from your attitude, you needed a reminder of the latter two things.

Also, I don't know why nobody (including myself) didn't point this out to you before, but funerals aren't just the "getting together and talking about the deceased" thing people do. It's also about the preserving of the body (temporarily, by embalming it) and putting it in the ground/burning it/doing whatever with it.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 06:25:56 AM by Lucifer »

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

I like you Lucifer, despite your flawed sense of reason, I think you have potential. After all, you're atheist. So I'm going to try to clarify this for you in very simple terms, so that even you might understand it.

You said no other alternative method can satisfy the same emotional needs as embalming followed by burial in a metal coffin with a concrete tomb.[1] However, many cultures do not bury their dead, and even in western societies, many people choose cremation or other alternatives. Are you saying these people are doing it wrong? Are they going to be less emotionally satisfied? Is it reasonable to expect complete emotional satisfaction after the death of a loved one? Is it reasonable expend massive amount of resources in pursuit of unachieveable emotional satisfaction?

I know what you're trying to say. You're saying that for some people, people raised in the tradition of elaborate burials, it is necessary. My point is that you are wrong. The goal is to achieve emotional satisfaction, the burial is simply a means to an end. If others can achieve the same satisfaction without burials, it proves that the need for burials is purely emotional. Therefore if an alternative method could provide those people (who want to bury) with the same level of emotional satisfaction[2], they would no longer feel the need to bury. This would prove that they never needed to bury, they simply needed emotional satisfaction.

You claim that no other existing method or as-of-yet unknown alternative could satisfy the emotional needs of those who want to bury, but I just don't understand how you can make that assertion. Have you asked them? Do you think if you offered an alternative that they knew met the same emotional needs at a lower cost (financially and environmentally) they would not accept it? Is that not why many people already choose cremation?

You claim that I don't care about people's emotional needs. Of course, this is a strawman, and you know it, but I'll indulge you because I think you can grow out of this immature debate style in time.

I do care about people's emotional needs. I do not think that they should take precedent over the good of society as a whole. I would say most people are in agreement on this, which is why we have laws. In the case of the current topic, I do understand people have emotional needs to grieve and gain closure in the death of a loved one, and I do respect those needs. My point is that the elaborate burials are not necessary to achieve that, people simply need to be offered an alternative.

I would bet that if I created a website offering green burial alternatives, advertised it, struck deals with funeral homes and cemeteries to offer my services for a percentage, I would get quite a bit of interest from people who thought they needed to bury.

You claim that no other existing method or as-of-yet unknown alternative could satisfy the emotional needs of those who want to bury, but I just don't understand how you can make that assertion. Have you asked them? Do you think if you offered an alternative that they knew met the same emotional needs at a lower cost (financially and environmentally) they would not accept it? Is that not why many people already choose cremation?

I have not asked them, but I also don't need to. The reality of death pierces even the most fundamentalist of theists. They cry and they feel sorry for the deceased, just like everyone[2] else. If they knew that there was another way by which they could fulfill the same emotional need, they would do it.

I would bet that if I created a website offering green burial alternatives, advertised it, struck deals with funeral homes and cemeteries to offer my services for a percentage, I would get quite a bit of interest from people who thought they needed to bury.

Really? Giiven the way that you present your views, are you honestly surprised at the reaction you are getting?

First, a lot of this is just a personal bias some people here have against me. They are arguing against what they want me to be saying and ignoring what I'm actually saying.

For example...

Quote from: joebbowers

Cremation and burial are superstitious practices, wasteful and useless.

I think all people should be ground up and used for fertilizer. The sad part is that superstitious traditions are so ingrained in us that while my solution is logical, cheap, and beneficial, most people would say it's crazy.

I know my ideas are far too progressive for many people to accept right away, and I expect some people to resist change, no matter how much that change might benefit them or society on the whole. I also know that some people simply like to argue, no matter how silly it makes them look, such as Lucifer when he says thousands of years is not a long time for him.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 09:20:58 AM by joebbowers »

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

I also know that some people simply like to argue, no matter how silly it makes them look, such as Lucifer when he says thousands of years is not a long time for him.

I said it because it's the truth. If you want to call me a liar, you're gonna have to show some evidence. I can show evidence supporting the fact that I've already said something similar to that on this forum.

So, once again, put up or shut up.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.